Three well-named tools with clear, domain-specific descriptions (avg 180 chars). All tools have input schemas with typed parameters and descriptions. Naming follows verb_noun pattern (get_v*_reserves). Descriptions explain WHAT each tool does and WHEN to use it. However, output schemas are not documented, LLMs cannot predict return structure. No error handling guidance, no parameter constraints (e.g., fee must be one of 100|500|3000|10000), and no mention of prerequisites (RPC endpoint availability). Token symbol resolution is mentioned but not formalized as an enum. Missing idempotency and retry guidance for read-only operations.

• Document output schema for each tool. Example for get_v1_reserves: 'Returns {"eth_reserve": string (wei), "token_reserve": string (wei), "token_address": string, "token_symbol": string}'.
• Constrain get_v3_reserves 'fee' parameter to enum: {"type": "integer", "enum": [100, 500, 3000, 10000], "description": "Fee tier in hundredths of a bip; omit to check all standard tiers (100, 500, 3000, 10000)."}, removes ambiguity and guides LLM selection.
• Add error handling: catch Web3 exceptions and return structured errors. E.g., 'Token address invalid or not found on mainnet. Try a known symbol: USDC, DAI, WBTC, WETH, USDT, WBTC.' This enables agent self-correction.
• Document idempotency and retry safety in tool descriptions: 'This is a read-only operation. Safe to retry on transient failures (network timeout, RPC rate limit).'
• Consider adding a resolve_token(symbol_or_address: str) discovery tool to help agents validate token inputs before calling reserve tools, reducing failed calls.